After Chicago v Fulton: Not Only Cars - A Survey of Fulton Rulings and a Weakened Automatic Stay • NACTT Academy

After Chicago v Fulton: Not Only Cars – A Survey of Fulton Rulings and a Weakened Automatic Stay

Intro: What is a Fulton ruling?

When Chicago v Fulton (In re Fulton), 141 S Ct. 585 (Sup Ct, 2021) was first decided by the Supreme Court, there was a consensus among bankruptcy attorneys that the erosion of the automatic stay with regard to turnover was only about cars. That is, Fulton was a narrow ruling that was only about impounded vehicles seized prepetition, and wouldn’t really impact or weaken the automatic stay otherwise. Two years on, that . . .

It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.

Or Sign In Below:

Hale Andrew Antico, Esq.

Bankruptcy Attorney in Los Angeles, CA

Hale Andrew Antico is honored to be chosen to serve his third term as President of cdcbaa, the largest association of Los Angeles bankruptcy attorneys dedicated to representing consumer debtors. Prior to that, he served as President of the Southern California Bankruptcy Inn of Court. He has been representing debtors filing Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases in the greater Los Angeles area for twenty years.

From the Editor – Classification

August 9, 2020

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Separate classification and preferential treatment of student loan debt. The Chapter 13 trustee and debtors’ attorney attempted to change the traditional approach in the District, seeking approval of a permissible fair discrimination in favor of student loan debt in plans so long as the preferential treatment and discrimination was no more than 20%....

Members

Can Good Facts Also Make Bad Law? Finality of Orders in Bankruptcy Revisited after Ritzen Group

Lawrence R. Ahern, III

March 20, 2022

"Finality" in Bankruptcy When is an order within a bankruptcy case "final"? When must a party to the proceeding appeal within 14 days? When may a party either seek interlocutory review or sit back and wait until something more occurs to make the order final? Final orders are appealable. In civil actions, this is a relatively easy proposition to apply...

Members

What Does “Following” Mean?

Kara K. Gendron

April 2, 2023

Section in 109(g)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code bars a debtor from filing a new case for 180 days if the Debtor voluntarily dismisses a case “following” a motion for relief. Not surprisingly, courts are split on how they interpret the word “following” as used in § 109(g)(2). After all, the word “following” is not limited to one definition, or even...

Members

From the Editor – Plan Modification

March 21, 2021

By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) For modification purposes, best interests test remains at petition date. In an examination of post-confirmation sale of the debtor’s home that yielded excess of homestead exemption, the Court concluded that the best-interests of creditors’ calculation was performed as of the petition date, rather than time of modification. Section 1329 does not provide a...

Members

Postpetition Borrowing by a Consumer Debtor in Chapter 13 – Part 1 of 2

May 5, 2019

By Judge Michael A. Fagone & Career Law Clerk Ciera S. Dye Although our Nation’s bankruptcy laws are uniform, chapter 13 practice in our Nation’s bankruptcy courts varies to a significant extent in the different judicial districts. One example of this variation is the treatment of postpetition borrowing by a consumer debtor in chapter 13.i Neither the Bankruptcy Code nor...

Members

SBRA – The Sequel: Leases in Bankruptcy Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (“CAA”)

February 21, 2021

Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Appendix 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) and (4), Showing Changes Made by Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2021 ("CAA"), Pub. L. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182 (eff. Dec. 27, 2020) (Sunset December 27, 2022. Changes continue to apply in cases commenced before sunset under subchapter V of Chapter 11.) 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) Pre-CAA Post-CAA...

Members

Supreme Court Revisits Finality of Orders in Bankruptcy: Comment on Ritzen and Review of “Finality”

February 9, 2020

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction The Supreme Court unanimously held on January 14 that an order denying stay relief was final in Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC.1 Thus, the creditor should have appealed the denial instead of waiting until later in the case to seek again to pursue its pre-bankruptcy litigation against...

Members

IRS Warns of Impersonation Email Scam; Reminds Taxpayers IRS Does Not Send Unsolicited Emails

August 25, 2019

On 8/22/19 the IRSe and its Security Summit partners warned taxpayers and tax professionals about a new IRS impersonation scam campaign spreading nationally on email. Remember: the IRS does not send unsolicited emails and never emails taxpayers about the status of refunds. The IRS detected this new scam as taxpayers began notifying [email protected] about unsolicited emails from IRS imposters. The...

The “Snapshot” Rule – Part 2: When is the Rule Not Determinative?

April 4, 2021

By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction We saw in Part 1 that the circuits are falling in line to follow the "snapshot" rule, fixing the debtor's exemption rights as of the date of the petition and finding support in both the Code and recent Supreme Court jurisprudence. As the First Circuit put it . ....

Members

Tax Deductions Hidden in Chapter 13

Cathy Moran

April 3, 2022

True. Most people no longer itemize under the current Tax Code. However, the amount of money involved varies and should be considered. The same very important debts that a Chapter 13 plan pays are often tax deductible. And your client is still the person who’s paying, even if the trustee writes the check. Don’t allow them to miss out on...

Members